In comments that are likely exactly what the US wants to hear, Iraqi President Barham Salih claimed that he sees no “serious” opposition to US troops staying in Iraq, and believes there is a general consensus that the US can stay “as long as it is necessary.”
This would be good news for the Pentagon, where officials want to stay
in Iraq effectively forever. Is it true though? Not from the comments
coming out of materially every other major Iraqi official.
MPs from every major Shi’ite political bloc in parliament have demanded a
timeline for the US troop withdrawal, and with the US pushing for
action against Shi’ite militias, they’ve got grudges with most of the
key factions now.
It is unclear how Salih can seriously claim there is no opposition to US
troops in Iraq, even if he believed that ultimately they’d let the US
stay. Dismissing parliament’s substantial qualms about the US impact on
sovereignty is only going to add to determination to force a public
timetable and more transparency on the matter.
Salih can make seriously that claim because Salih doesn’t consider Iraq to be a serious democracy.
What? Iraq isn’t that model democracy the American people were told was going to be simple?
Oh well, on to the next foreign policy train werck .
Why isn’t Trump trying to get us out of a place he said we should have never invaded? Wasn’t that the cornerstone of his anti-interventionist campaign speeches?
“swamp Mueller or neocons”…pick your flavor of the day.
Iraq is a parliamentary democracy, run by its Prime Minister. As in Israel, the President is ceremonial, not someone with authority.
What do the PM and Parliament say? Not this.
Although it is always wise to resist a bully, it is not always wise to get a huge ignorant one riled up when he is in arms reach.
Iraq is trying to walk a fineline. But the “president” must understand that he is on borrowed time.
They showed him pictures of Saddam, Gaddafi, Maduros, Marcos, Chavez, Seth Rich, and Barham’s children and asked “Do you want US to stay?”